FBI Publishes 9-11 Pentagon Attack Photos on 3-23-17... With Faces Blacked Out

a reply to: D8Tee

Ok. Wanting to weigh ALL the evidence probably does seem like a "last resort" when you have accepted so much less for 16 years.

I don't think i should have to accept less. Sorry you have such low standards for evidence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You will not state a theory to supersede the large jet strike at the pentagon? What is there to settle for?

originally posted by: neutronflux
If you wanted to push the issue, what would your freedom of information act request look like? What is left to ask for?

Something like this:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I request that a copy of the following videos be provided to me:

All video footage confiscated by the FBI as part of the investigation of the attacks on 9/11.

In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am a member of the public and will help disseminate the video records requested online to make them accessible to others. The video records I request will not be used for commercial purposes.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request, however, should the cost of gathering these records be burdensome to the federal government, please alert me to any excessive costs so that I may have the opportunity to cover them.

Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. Many in the public seek a greater understanding of the events of 9/11.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

My Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code

***


I have written FOIA and state open records requests before. Some have even been successful. But, I've never had the resources to appeal the unlawful denials I've encountered, in Court.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You will not state a theory to supersede the large jet strike at the pentagon? What is there to settle for?

I do not have the authority and power to conduct a formal investigation. Stop acting like I do and that I have just *failed* to uncover evidence that disputes the official story.

It's completely disingenuous.

I am not prosecuting any case...i am considering the OS. That case is full of reasonable doubt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Point was how would you word your request?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you have a theory to supersede a large jet strike at the pentagon? If you don't, what is there to debate?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Point was how would you word your request?

Point was just addressed in my last comment to you:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

I request that a copy of the following videos be provided to me:

All video footage confiscated by the FBI as part of the investigation of the attacks on 9/11.

In order to help to determine my status to assess fees, you should know that I am a member of the public and will help disseminate the video records requested online to make them accessible to others. The video records I request will not be used for commercial purposes.

I request a waiver of all fees for this request, however, should the cost of gathering these records be burdensome to the federal government, please alert me to any excessive costs so that I may have the opportunity to cover them.

Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest. Many in the public seek a greater understanding of the events of 9/11.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,

My Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you have a theory to supersede a large jet strike at the pentagon? If you don't, what is there to debate?

Well, sure I have theories...just like you. But I m not settled on anything due to lack of evidence, concealment of evidence, and questionable evidence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is left to release?

www.judicialwatch.org...

Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)

November 11, 2011
Judicial Watch lawsuit to obtain previously unseen footage of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.On May 16, 2006, Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defense to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11. The videos had been kept secret by the DoD until Judicial Watch filed the FOIA request and, eventually, a lawsuit stating that the DoD had “no legal basis” to refuse release of the footage. On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

history.defense.gov...

Here's some testimony about the pentagon recordings that may interest you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is left to release?

" On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.
"

Everything else besides that. 80+ videos.

I've answered this and all your other redundant questions. You are wasting my time. I have better things to do. I am not answering any more redundant questions. If you have another question, go back and read my comments FIRST to make sure they haven't been answered already.

FFS. This really is annoying.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is left to release?

" On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.
"

Everything else besides that. 80+ videos.

I've answered this and all your other redundant questions. You are wasting my time. I have better things to do. I am not answering any more redundant questions. If you have another question, go back and read my comments FIRST to make sure they haven't been answered already.

FFS. This really is annoying.

FFS yes it is annoying, it's been pointed out time and time again what the foi request turned up.

The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.
56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77."
Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released.

www.911myths.com...

Why would anyone need a clear video recording to be convinced a certain plane crashed at a certain site? Most plane crashes are not recorded by even one camera, and there are often no eye witnesses, and yet doubts hardly ever arise if a plane crashed at all, provided it was tracked by radar to it crash site, its wreckage is found, the remains of its passengers and crew recovered and identified?
And yet, in the case of AA77, we have two video recordings and over a hundred known eye witnesses!

a reply to: D8Tee

Blerg. Covered in like 5 comments or more of mine. I think I even used the same link. So f- annoying that you guys don't read anything but your own comments.

All of the videos are evidence no matter what they show. Even if they show nothing then they are evidence to support the OS or something else.

And since they are being concealed, I tend to think they implicate those concealing them no matter what is "reported" that they show.

The federal government must disclose them or abandon your efforts to convince me they aren't relevant or material. I am not taking any suspect's word that they aren't relevant or material when those suspects are concealing them for no good reason.

Moving on.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
Why would the FBI release tapes which aren't theirs?
Why would the FBI release footage that does not even show the Pentagon itself?
The FBI only seized four tapes. Those tapes were released.

The majority of the videos the FBI had were voluntarily given to them from private citizens. Many videos were home movies, news reels, etc. i.e. of no relation to the specific FOIA request. So a few tapes may have shown the Trade Towers burning, but it was not Pentagon impact footage. These tapes belong to the individuals who sent them in. In order to release those tapes, that person has to give permission.

a reply to: D8Tee

Bull to all of your unsourced comment. Good night.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

There are no corroborated accounts of confiscated footage outside of Citgo, Doubletree and the parking lot tapes. We can thus dismiss your supposed "extra video tapes" as unsupported speculation. The claim that "85 videotapes" were confiscated is a distortion of an FBI agent's reply to the 2004 FOIA request.

The majority of the videos the FBI had were voluntarily given to them from private citizens

Show me otherwise.

a reply to: D8Tee

I like sleep after midnight. And there's no substance to your comment so it's laughable to call it 'truth, when it's just......zzzzzzzzzzzz....zzzzzzzzz....

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: facedye

ok.. yes, a security booth's purpose is to record vehicles coming through the security gate. what, then, would be the purpose of the multiple security cameras lining the roof?

The cameras would be to capture people walking on the Pentagon grounds. Cameras tracking vehicles would be near roads or parking lots to capture vehicles. You don't track people and cars from distant cameras, you use the closest cam and switch to the next closest as the target moves.

By using the closest cam all the time the cam is more likely to be pointed towards the ground more and not out into the distance. So cameras on the side of the pentagon would be more likely to be pointed down and not out onto the horizon.

It is highly unlikely they were set up with the intention of capturing an incoming airplane or missile.

all of that is literally just your opinion =/ you're basing that on *zero* credible information.

you're quit obviously assuming that the cameras can't be moved on cue, and that they always face the ground. this is so absurd it doesn't even deserve a good rebuttal, so i'll go with a really weak one: how do you know that?

oh that's right, you don't. you absolutely, positively don't.

and you know what? let's say you're absolutely right. if they were only facing the ground, that'd be *PERFECT.* as i hope you know, based on the official story, the plane traveled through the front yard at no more than 20 feet off the ground at 530mph. you couldn't ask for a better angle.

If I show you a picture of a plane, does that prove I'm a pilot?

you asked me to prove i have experience with video. i asked you if you wanted a copy of my short film. you said you didn't care what i presented, just that i present something.

i timestamped a picture of the tape that is my actual short film, and now you want to play it off like i'm lying to you about that?

holy s#!t that's hilarious. set up a P.O. box, i'll send it to you - so long as you promise not to come back with "well how do i know you exist?" after you watch it.

there's only one problem - this tape is a miniDV, which i shot on a professional camera. this means that you'll only be able to see it with a professional video camera or a miniDV player. i *highly* doubt you have either. but please, keep on implying that i'm trying to mislead you after i provided the proof of experience that you asked for. whatever helps you sleep at night.

a reply to: facedye

Testimony
There is testimony from the Maintenance Team Chief who was responsible for the cameras and recording equipment at the Pentagon if you care to read it?

you're quit obviously assuming that the cameras can't be moved on cue, and that they always face the ground.

Seems to be the case if you were to read the testimony from the Maintenance Team Chief.

there's only one problem - this tape is a miniDV, which i shot on a professional camera. this means that you'll only be able to see it with a professional video camera or a miniDV player. i *highly* doubt you have either. but please, keep on implying that i'm trying to mislead you after i provided the proof of experience that you asked for. whatever helps you sleep at night.

A picture of a videotape is not proof. Can you not transfer it to another medium and upload it to the web? Is that beyond your ability? I am not giving you my post office box number, it could be a plot to steal my identity.

a reply to: D8Tee

A sworn testimony detailing the whole system, how it worked, what wasn't working, every bone of contention covered. Surely no-one will be arguing over that.

Well I feel some will but they're behind the 8 ball now